What a difference a few weeks makes.
Just over a month ago president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was castigating the Chinese government over its brutal crackdown on Tibetan protesters and then savaged Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) for comparing Taiwan to Tibet. One could reasonably believe that this party of pro-China ideologues that lost power in 2000 had turned over a new leaf.
But that was before the election. Now that the party has executive power safely back in its grasp and an undeservedly large legislative majority to boot, the true nature of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is once again beginning to seep through the cracks.
First there was KMT Legislator Liao Wan-ju (廖婉汝), who — following protests here — suggested that Tibetan supporters had been mobilized by the Ministry of National Defense’s Military Intelligence Bureau.
Then last week, when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative caucus tried to push through a resolution in the legislature condemning the Chinese government for the crackdown, the KMT caucus decided to use its majority to back its own watered-down version which contributed little more than verbal fluff about “protecting human rights in Tibet.”
On Tuesday the party’s Taipei City councilors followed suit, postponing indefinitely a debate on establishing March 10 as “Tibet Day” which would have been a mark of respect following the violence.
What a pity that the majority of KMT members don’t share Ma’s apparently progressive views and are instead willing to bend over backwards to placate Beijing’s bullies.
But one must not forget that the KMT was and is organizationally Leninist, made up of autocrats, many of whom have more in common with the thugs in Zhongnanhai than the peace-loving Buddhists of Tibet. Indeed, many of them only got where they are today by clinging to the coattails of a dictator, so it should not be surprising when they come down on the side of the Chinese.
Unfortunately, the actions of the party’s councilors and, more importantly, its legislators, is more evidence — if any was needed following Ma’s woefully inadequate stint as party chairman — that the party’s main vote-winner is a breed apart from most party members.
Some people who voted for Ma on his message of change are likely to be in for a shock as KMT legislators demonstrate their brazen disregard for public opinion and begin to push pork-barrel bills that they simply couldn’t have gotten away with in previous legislatures.
In fact, this has already begun.
A couple of weeks ago the legislature began review of amendments proposed by KMT legislators Yang Chiung-ying (楊瓊瓔), Chu Fong-chi (朱鳳芝) and Ting Shou-chung (丁守中) that will double the benefits given to traditionally pro-KMT village and borough chiefs nationwide, all at the taxpayers’ expense.
And then there are the proposed amendments to the Statute Governing Reconstruction of Old Military Dependents’ Villages (國軍老舊眷村改建條例) that will benefit the families of KMT military veterans to the tune of around NT$1.32 trillion (US$40.6 billion) if (or should one say when) it passes.
Is this the kind of government for “all the people” that those who voted for Ma expected?
The KMT’s Jekyll and Hyde attitude to the Tibetan issue, as unimportant as it may be to many Taiwanese, is a taste of what is to come as the new president struggles to curb the excesses of a legislature intoxicated with its own power.
Ma will need every ounce of strength he has if he is to tame the dragon and achieve half of what he promised.
We wish him luck.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
A report by the US-based Jamestown Foundation on Tuesday last week warned that China is operating illegal oil drilling inside Taiwan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Island (Dongsha, 東沙群島), marking a sharp escalation in Beijing’s “gray zone” tactics. The report said that, starting in July, state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp installed 12 permanent or semi-permanent oil rig structures and dozens of associated ships deep inside Taiwan’s EEZ about 48km from the restricted waters of Pratas Island in the northeast of the South China Sea, islands that are home to a Taiwanese garrison. The rigs not only typify
RSS